The Loss of Church as Public

My first location for this post is as a church planter, trying to grow a church in the post Christian, secular materialist, and post church context of Europe. What does it mean within this context to try to establish a vibrant church community that enables Christian’s formation and grow in faith, and for people in our local community to convert to that form of life, as Christians, in and through our church plant?

Alasdair MacIntyre has demonstrated how practices are prior to institutions, and yet good practices are only sustained over time by institutions. However those very institutions over time corrupt and undermine the good practices they were set in place for.

In referencing MacIntyre, I betray my second locations for this post, of being within ‘emerging church’ discussions and conversations (whether others consider me legitimately located within this context is another question).

Within my context the protestant church has seemingly retreated into the subjective private gnosis of ‘relevance’ with it’s myriad progressions of worship aesthetics, be that charismatic revivalism, purpose driveness, or alternative worship, whilst on the other hand it has turned to a reified and objectified faith around some form of biblical fundamentalism.

There are many types of shading to both of these streams, but they do seem to me to have something deeply in common, the shared feature of a loss of ‘genuine public’.  There has been either an unwillingness to question current ecclesiologies and the inherent corruptions and distortions of the institutions of church that debilitate it from a genuinely ‘public life’, whilst on the other hand there has been the naïve and often-bourgeois indulgent fantasy of being ‘post institutional’ with regards to ecclesiology, that often goes as far as an ontological ‘post-church’ articulation.

Where the church in modernity has been reduced to an association of religiously interested individuals, and most ongoing critiques of that association seem to continue to spawn even more religiously associated individuals, is there any hope or need to establish churches that reflect more than a dissolution into private clubs that reflect the tastes of their members? And with that assertion I betray my other location, that of my PhD research.

In order to address that problem, to seek to diagnose its condition and extrusion within consumer culture, and to find and offer an alternative public ecclesiology, I have been orienting myself within the discourses of Catholic Social Teaching, Radical Orthodoxy, and Anabaptist theology.  Unsurprisingly given the nature of my problem area, and thesis, my method has increasingly located itself within ‘political theology’, with the hope of finding an ‘embodied’ and ‘public’ form of church. 

I have been recently been drinking deeply from the wells of William Cavanaugh, Bernd Wannenwetsch, and Reinhard Hütter.  They have given me theological descriptions to my intuitive anxieties from working in the field as a church planter (I must plug the upcoming conference at Calvin in May with some of these writers, that I am more than a little excited about attending).

With regards to this loss of ‘genuine public life’, Hütter delineates five current ecclesial responses that he does not see as exhaustive:

1.) A return to the State
2.) A return to Rome (and I would add for many the turn towards Canterbury)
3.) A continued splintering around protest (I would find the children of the protestant reformation birthing the post-church movement here)
4.) A continued confessional church a la Bonhoeffer, that seeks to remain grounded in word and dogmatic confession
5.) A new charismatic principle of the hermeneutical horizon of discussions about confession

All of them are fascinating areas for discussion, but it is the last one, given my locations as a church planter, and my emerging church context, that I find for the purposes of this post the most interesting.

(And without any detailed analysis of these responses, I will lay my cards on the table, in that I think we can find ecclesial hope in the embrace of all of them, as well as the anticipated sixth alternative that Hütter offers)

Much of the emerging church has been self consciously located around the notion of ‘conversations’, and whilst I have found it’s largely irenic dialectic immensely helpful, I think Hütter exposes one of the ecclesial limitations of this emerging church moment. 

When doctrine is no longer something we orient ourselves around, i.e. there is no ‘giveness’ and instead dogmatics becomes a dialogue partner that ‘discloses it’s content within the nexus and horizon of communication’, no wonder there is no ‘giveness’ and public to church life.

In other words ecclesiology collapses into the conversations about church, the flux and idealizations of talking about what church might be (and often the pathology of what it isn’t), such that ecclesiology remains a hermeneutical horizon of discussions about church, rather than a concrete reality of growing and new communities with new Christians.  No reference is needed to practices and habits of concrete church locations and communities.

Or to put it another way, if there is no ‘church’, no concrete third space and alternative to ‘us’ and the public, if we too easily resent the notion of any third and institutional entity between the consumer quest for ‘community/fellowship’, and us as autopoietic agents, surely the church will continue to be forced into producing ‘private religious associations’?

Hütter suggests that there is no third space between the content of Christian traditions and individuals appropriation of that content for their own private spiritual formation due to this inherent and continued aporia of protestant thinking. 

William Cavanaugh offers us a Eucharistic theo-politically imagined public for ecclesiology,  Bernd Wannewetsch a similarly grammatically embodied public worship, and Reinhard Hütter himself an explicitly pneumatological ecclesiological that overcomes the modern alternatives of ‘autonomy’ and ‘heteronomy’ with a doctrinally embodied practice.

With all this I am seeking for a new ecclesiological method, an ‘institutional hermeneutic’ if you will, that enables the release and development of good practice, whilst remaining suspicious of itself, without falling into the naivety of post-intuitional thinking.  An ecclesiology that enhypostatically epitomises the institutional realism of Alasdair MacIntyre.

I am increasingly convinced that what we need is a real ‘public’ church that counters the modern state church, and the private god space associations of much that is emerging.  And until we do, we will see little in the way of vibrant communities filled with new and growing Christians, at least in Western Europe.

So I turn to you, gentle reader.  Do you see a similar location for the problems of ecclesiology, have you interacted with my discourse partners, and what alternatives do you see available?

Jason Clark – London

(Please excuse any typos given my typing this on the fly, and with far too much haste whilst on holiday)

www.jasonclark.ws
www.deepchurch.org.uk
www.vineyardchurch.org

(Bibliography:  Reinhard Hütter, “Suffering Divine Things”, Bernd Wannenwetsch, “Political Worship: Ethics for Christian Citizens”, and William T. Cavanaugh, “Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ” and “Theopolitical Imagination”)

Comments

[steven hamilton]

intriguing post jason…i would certainly agree with you and the venerable Hütter, in that my experience is that while the emergent conversations have been helpful, i do see many people floundering, and this may be my somewhat informed assumption, but they flounder in the aftermath of more and more conversations because, as you say: “… ecclesiology collapses into the conversations about church, the flux and idealizations of talking about what church might be (and often the pathology of what it isn’t), such that ecclesiology remains a hermeneutical horizon of discussions about church, rather than a concrete reality of growing and new communities with new Christians.”

it’s more than a little frustrating. (i am also with you on the private gnosis of ‘relevance’…)

question, and this was my question from Paul’s previous post on public space and the church, but i think i am having trouble understanding precisely what you mean by third space. maybe i’m drinking too much of the newbigin kool-aid, but doesn’t the church, the more concretely reality of it, not just our wishes about what it might be…the church emerge in the context of life and culture and being…is that emerging space the third space you are talking of? or is this something else between public space and “us”?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Jason,

If you consider me within the emerging church conversation, then I'll consider you art of it, and we'll both be covered.  Although according to the post and your sources, you'll have to join the hauerwasian mafia rather than the Volfian syndicate. 

Regardless, I think you are spot on about the necessity of the Church being public.  I was similarly impacted by Hutters' 'suffering divine things.'  (Alas, now he is now Catholic, which draws into the fears expressed in previous comments).  It does seem that much of Emerging ecclesiology has collapsed into mere conversation (or dialogue) which belies a problematic parallel with pragmatic political philosophies of Jeffrey Stout and Rom Coles.  There are calls toward generous receptivity of the other as a means toward democracy, but in the process anything distinctive of the Church is "Lost in Conversation"  and ecclesiology becomes less about embodying Christ in the world and rather about being open to the world (which of course should not be opposed to each other). 

What we need is an exemplification of a church whose institutional form does not stifle dialogue, and can bear a hierarchy without being coercive.   In these ways an alternative "Public" will be construed beyond the liberal-consumer Public of deliberative democracy (i.e. conversations about conversations).

[Jason Clark]

Steven:

Thanks Steven, I'm posting my reply to you here and over at the Church and Postmodernism site.

I'm not an expert in Newbigin, I have read a few of his books, and like you I do think the church emerges in the context of life and culture, as an alternative and reconciliation of the other spaces of life, without the collapse into the private or the public that we see so often h

[Jason Clark]

Geoff: I'm unfamiliar with pragmatic political philosophies such as Jeffrey Stout and Rom Coles, a bit of my beaten research track, but I'll take a look, thank you.

I'm hoping to find something within and between the these three discourses of CST (Catholic), RO (anglican), and Anabaptist theology that enables the church to get beyond be loss of a real concrete reconciling public space.

'Lost in conversation' would make a great title for some of my work, thanks :-)

You concluded saying:

"What we need is an exemplification of a church whose institutional form does not stifle dialogue, and can bear a hierarchy without being coercive. In these ways an alternative "Public" will be construed beyond the liberal-consumer Public of deliberative democracy (i.e. conversations about conversations)."

Where do you see that happening, concretely with theological reflection and ecclesiological engagement?

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Sorry, jason...I already trademarked "Lost in Conversation" (I wish!)

In the books is would say that John Milbank makes a good case for an ecclesiology as both having democratic and hierarchical elements in chapter 7 of "Being Reconciled". Also Romand Coles and Hauerwas have a collaboration just out called "Christianity, Democracy, and the Radical Ordinary." In it Hauerwas argues that a commitment to orthodoxy (with its hierarchy of truth) helps us keep the story of Jesus straight as non-coersively open to others. For Hauerwas, a commitment to orthodoxy and a certain ecclesial heirarchy are the conditions for a radical democracy of generous receptivity.

As far as concretely in practice, I can only speak for my experience. We have three co-pastor (2 part-time, and 3/4th time) at our church (along with someone preparing to plant a church, and others in pastoral development). we all practice 'mutual submission' to one another, but this doesn't mean that we are all equals. While we are all co-pastors, one among us has more life and pastoral experience, from whom we take our lead from, but not absolutely. We practice regular confession and repentance among our pastors b/c everything is always laid out on the table. But to do this we are in many senses a very inefficient church b/c no one person makes all the decisions. We try to foster the gifts of the Spirit and expect that the Spirit is leading through the congregation as well as through the leaders. We tell everyone over and over that our church is neither a democracy nor a dictatorship, but a pneumatocracy (Spirit controlled).

About institutional form, we are currently trying to reorder our church so that it will have a form, but so that the form will help foster rather than stifle being the Body of Christ. As we have grown this has meant that we must continually reform ourselves so that we are not conformed to the pattern of the suburban world.

[philip]

In addition, you may want to look into a recent volume by Charles Mathewes titled "A Theology of Public Life." Though it is not a work dedicated to issues of ecclesiology like Hutter's work tends to be, Mathewes develops a theology of citizenship that is indebted a bit to Stout and yet pays homage to the most promising features of Milbank's project--and, to a lesser extent, Hauerwas. The questions of civil society and public spaces have a long lineage and Mathewes is largely indebted to a reading of Augustine and Hannah Arendt to develop his conception of citizenship. Enjoy.

[Jason Clark]

Geoff: Thanks for the personal and concrete examples, and Hauerwas will be my autumn reading schedule, I have yet to really get to him. I'm sure it will be provoking!

[Jason Clark]

Philip: I have just read, "Having: Property and Possession in Religious and Social Life", edited by Mathewes, my first interaction with him. I'll look that reference up, thank you.

[Geoff Holsclaw]

jason,
Where do you see this stuff happening, concretely with theological reflection and ecclesiological engagement?

[len]

On the weekend I was reading one of my favorite writers, Capon, in Genesis: The Movie. It hit me that creation could be described as an eternal ongoing conversation within the godhead. BUT.. that eternal conversation takes flesh.. now.. and now.. and forever Amen. And from here I think we could pull in Tom Wright :)

[fernando]

Jason, where will you be diving into Hauerwas? I suspect Wilderness Wanderings and Sanctify Them in Truth, might be pertinent. Certainly both are on my "reread sometime soon" list. Something else, that hasn't been mentioned here or on your blog yet, is the focussed resurgence of interest in Reinhold Niehbur or the recent work from Adorno, mining Paul for ideas of a public and political theology (recent focus of reading for me).

BTW, at the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, isn't there an epistemological issue with trying to simulateously mine CST, RO and AB? As a lapsed critical realist, I can just hear the kinds of critiques you might be faced with on that point.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

[Jason Clark]

Geoff: Not a great many places. There still seems to be a deep divide between pragmatism, and reflection. The practice of church as a practical sociological engagement with post modern culture (be that immersion or withdrawal), or disincarnate theology.

I'm sure it is happening, but I think it is the malaise of western theory vs practice, and the loss of 'public' for the church, just contributes to that further.

Private practice around reflection certainly takes place, but how do we reflect together, and reconcile the oikos and polis?

[Jason Clark]

Len: The incarnation, as a way to understand the realms of life and God's redemption for them, is vital. I'm not familiar with Capon?

[Jason Clark]

Fernando: Of Course the 'The Hauerwas reader' ;-). I was going to start with 'In Good Company' and 'A Community of Character'

With regards to Neibhur , any particular books to recommend?

With regards to RO/CST/AB I'm exploring them to see: 1) What critical account and reading of consumerism and the market do they offer? 2) How does this account then relate to concepts of soteriology and anthropology? 3) Lastly, how then does this relate to ecclesiology, what are the implications for ecclesiology as a response to this analysis?

Where do you see an epistemological issue for me, within that exploration?

[Jason Hesiak]

Private practice around reflection certainly takes place, but how do we reflect together, and reconcile the oikos and polis?

I am starting to entertain the idea that this stuff has more deeply rooted issues than what I am been willing to admit in the past. I think maybe this stuff goes back much further than what I am used to thinking of it. I mean think of the violence that pervaded the late Medieval and early Renaissance "polis" (PRIOR to the Reformation)! Even then the CHURCH of the "polis", back then a much greater PUBLIC thing, was a "domus", and was thought of as a "house of God." They often had domed roofs, and "domus" means "house." I wouldn't be surprised if many of the Medicci's warrior bandits went home at night and prayed with their families (just a hunch). Conversely how many armies had Bishops or Cardinals at their head? Speaking of RECONCILATION of a kind of VIOLENT tear :)

[Caroline Rhoads]

Life is change. It is impossible to freeze life and make everything remain the way they are. I am so glad that we as Christian can bring positive change to those that need to see the love of Christ… Thank you for your articles! Jesus Is Lord!

[Jason Clark]

Jason: I wonder too, at the violence that consumerism is causing with it's perverted liturgy (to apply Cavanaugh here), that disables us from public life, fragments us, and cause our worship to have more in common with the roman household god's (Wannewetsch) than the reconciling power of the gospel in all spheres of life.

The things we do with our bodies, as consumer liturgical practices, are horrific.

[Jason Hesiak]

Oh the household gods! Interesting thought! Interestingly at my Mom's house there's a memorial plaque of my Dad. The family procession that occured when it was placed there had a strangely religious feel to it, too. Of relevance, too, my sister has had a hard time with "life" since my Dad died. She finally came to church for the second time in a couple months again yesterday...which incidentally occurs in an old rescue squad building behind a farmers market.

[Bob Longman]

Hütter, Cavanaugh, Wannewetsch.

More to wear out my tired eyes for :) . Thanks!